SARMAN RAI,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3)(3), JHANSI, JHANSI
Facts
The assessee filed a return of income declaring Rs. 3,47,710/-. The Assessing Officer noticed a cash deposit of Rs. 13,90,000/- in the assessee's bank account and initiated reassessment proceedings. The assessee did not respond to notices, and the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 13,90,000/- as unexplained income.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not respond to notices during assessment proceedings and failed to substantiate contentions before the CIT(Appeals). However, since the assessment order was passed ex-parte under section 144, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment after seeking explanation from the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of Rs. 13,90,000/- as unexplained cash deposit is justified without proper application of mind and rejection of assessee's explanation.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 142(1), 144, 69A, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 86/Agr/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13
Sarman Rai, 39, Indiwar Nagar, Vs. Income-tax Officer, Jhansi – 284001 (UP). Ward 2(3)(3), Jhansi. PAN : AISPR4990C (Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by Sh. Sahib P. Satsangee, C.A. Department by Sh. Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR Date of hearing 21.05.2025 Date of pronouncement 29.05.2025
ORDER Per Sunil Kumar Singh, Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 15.02.2024 passed in Appeal No. CIT (Appeal)-2, Agra/10348/2019-20 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), wherein the learned CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 2. Briefly stating, the assessee filed his return of income on 31.08.2012 for the year under consideration declaring income of Rs.3,47,710/-. Based on the information available with the department, the Assessing Officer
ITA No.86/Agr/2025
noticed that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.13,90,000/- in his bank
account maintained with PNB, Baruasagar, Jhansi. The Assessing Officer,
therefore, initiated reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 by issuing notice
u/s. 148 of the Act on 29.03.2019, which stood un-responded on behalf of
the assessee. Thereafter, notices u/s. 142(1) were issued on various
occasions, but for no avail. Show cause notice issued u/s. 144 to the
assessee was also not complied with. The Assessing Officer, after seeking
bank statement of the assessee from the concerned bank and for want of
assessee’s submissions, made addition of the aforesaid unexplained cash
deposit amounting to Rs.13,90,000/- as unexplained income u/s. 69A of the
Act, vide assessment order dated 14.10.2019 passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of
the Act.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred first appeal before ld.
CIT(Appeals), who dismissed the same vide impugned order.
The assessee has filed this appeal before the tribunal on the following
grounds :
“1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Authorities below have erred both on facts and in law with prima facie belief that the cash deposited in the Bank Account was out of unexplained sources and therefore the income has escaped assessment without considering the return filed by the appellant. 2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Authorities below have erred both on facts and in law initiating reassessment proceedings with mere information without application of mind for forming of such belief that the cash deposited
2 | P a g e
ITA No.86/Agr/2025
in the Bank Account represented undisclosed income of the appellant. 3. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Authorities below have erred both on facts and in law adding a sum of Rs. 13,90,000 under section 69A of the LT. Act, 1961 without appreciating the source of cash deposited in the bank account of the appellant out of the sales credited to the Audited Profit & Loss Account for the impugned year recorded in the books of account maintained by the appellant. 4. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Authorities below have erred both on facts and in law in making addition under section 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 on mere presumption, surmises and conjectures without rejecting the explanation and the books of accounts maintained during the regular course of business by the appellant.”
Perused the records and heard the ld. Representative for the
assessee and the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue.
At the very outset, ld. Representative for the assessee has pressed
delay condonation application and prayed to condone the delay of 306 days
in filing this appeal on the ground that appellant filed reply on 10.07.2021 in
response to the notice issued by Ld. CIT(Appeals). The appellant was not
aware of notice dated 05.02.2024 and there was no information of the
impugned order. It was only on receipt of demand notice, the assessee
became aware of the impugned order and took immediate steps to file the
appeal on 15.02.2025. Assessee has filed an affidavit in support of delay
condonation application, which is un-controverted on record. In the interest
of justice, we treat assessee’s explanation as sufficient and condone the
delay in filing this appeal. 3 | P a g e
ITA No.86/Agr/2025
Learned AR has further submitted that the Revenue authorities have
erred in making aforesaid addition merely on the presumption, surmises
and conjectures without rejecting the explanation and the books of account
maintained by the assessee during the regular course of business. It was
further submitted that the appellant deals in retail sale of country liquor,
where sale in cash is a regular phenomena and the cash deposit in the
bank account is out of such sale proceeds in cash. The Assessing Officer
has not doubted the declared turnover of Rs.89,27,121/- of assessee.
Hence, cash deposit of Rs. 13,90,000/- cannot be doubted, being the part
of such turnover. Prayed to set aside the impugned order.
Learned DR has supported the impugned order.
Perusal of the impugned order shows that the assessee did not
respond to the various notices issued by the Assessing Officer in the
assessment proceedings. He has also not filed return of income in
pursuance to notice u/s. 148. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the
ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the first appeal of the assessee on the
premise that that the assessee could not substantiate its contention by
furnishing copies of cash book, sale invoices, ledger accounts or any
documentary evidence in support of his case before the Assessing Officer.
It is, however, seen that the assessment order has been passed u/s. 144 of
the Act, where the assessee could not make any submission and explain 4 | P a g e
ITA No.86/Agr/2025
the cash deposits in the bank account. The nature of appellant’s business
is not disputed. In the circumstances and in the interest of justice and fair
play, we deem it just and appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of
learned Assessing Officer for framing the assessment order afresh after
seeking explanation of the assessee as to the source of the aforesaid cash
deposits in the bank account. We order accordingly. We further direct the
assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the assessment
proceedings and making submissions before the Assessing Officer for the
expeditious and effective disposal. Assessee shall refrain from seeking any
adjournment but for compelling and unavoidable reasons. Needless to say
that learned Assessing Officer shall ensure the observance of the principles
of natural justice. The appeal is liable to be allowed accordingly.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Impugned
order dated 15.02.2024 and assessment order dated 14.10.2019 are set
aside.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29.05.2025.
Sd/- Sd/-
(MANISH AGARWAL) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29.05.2025 *aks/-
5 | P a g e
ITA No.86/Agr/2025
